IN RE: A. D. H. (2022)

Mother appeals from a disposition judgment after the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over her infant daughter. She contends that the Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to make active efforts to reunify her with her daughter, primarily because it failed to approve an in-home plan with father's sister.¹

Because mother's daughter is an Indian child, the juvenile court was required to determine if DHS had made “active efforts” to reunite her with mother, ORS 419B.340(1). Under ORS 419B.645, “active efforts” are efforts that are “affirmative, active, thorough, timely and intended to maintain or reunite an Indian child with the Indian child's family.”

Having reviewed the record for any evidence in support of the juvenile court's findings of fact and its conclusions of law for legal error, Dept. of Human Services v. R. W., 277 Or. App. 37, 39, 370 P.3d 543 (2016), we conclude that the juvenile court did not err. The department made extensive efforts toward reunification, most of which were rejected by mother, including a proposed in-home placement with another relative. Its rejection of mother's preferred placement with a different relative does not support a conclusion that those efforts were not active.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father is not a party to this appeal.

PER CURIAM